Re: OT to the extreme [Was Re: I'm working on yet another license]

[ sorry, loooong and still totally OT]

Tim X wrote:
Its very dangerous to generalise what you observe in your own local
microcosm to a general theory about unemployment. for example, you are
in your mid 20's and I'm in my mid 40's. In my little microcosm, I
don't see many lazy pot smoking dropouts who are not looking for
work. Instead, I see lots of previously hard working individuals who
have been retrenched or made redundent due to falling company profits
that are unable to obtain new jobs - often because younger potential
employees with a potentially longer useful worklife are getting the
jobs - often because they are prepared to work for less as they don't
have the same financial committments (yet). 

Of course Oz is probably a lot different than Germany.

At least German companies now have most of their shareholders, their employees, and their earnings outside Germany, so for instance that means that Germany has to build its own new economy without those big fish. I don't know about other countries, but companies are going offshore, shares are acquired by Japan, some USA, maybe China etc.

We can't rely on those companies anymore. We have two choices, as I see them: reforms, so that things are flexible. That will result in wages and prices falling a lot (because we aren't competitive anymore with Asian countries in the long term), but we could rebuild the economy.

The second choice is just further pseudo-reforms that we are seeing for decades now and that don't lead anywhere (well, towards Socialism, but that can't help in a global economy that IS based on trade (i.e. capitalism), even for China).

Funny thing, that decades ago we didn't have those ADD kids and
everybody could just do their homework.  People finishing school in my
country could actually read and spell, and do basic math.


Decades ago you could easily pick up a non-skilled job or an
apprenticship which didn't require much education and you would likely
hold the same job most of your life. Now that we have moved into a

Yes, maybe. But those people worked a lot harder than we do (looking at typical German students that are HARDLY overworked), and they could read, spell etc. after school.

more technically based employment market you want to blame those who
may not be as gifted with technical ability or are not as adept at
learning (especially abstract concepts)? Yeah, that seems really
fair.

I can only speak for myself. I see people that seem gifted to take up new things. Maybe I'm also a bit gifted for abstract stuff, yes. But most of what I learned was *work*, and *hard*. At some point all English I read was 70% unknown words. At some point I had trouble understanding rather simple math. Where others tended to give up (in my impression) I simply sat down on my ass and swallowed the damn thing.

Of course after a while learning gets a lot easier, languages become easier, abstract concepts relate and are easier to remember etc. So of course now I'm waaay out the league of some other people out there. But we started on very similar ground I'd say.

Most of my way of thinking wasn't there ten years ago, so I assume the synapses in my brain weren't either. I thought it's a well-known fact that lifelong learning is a requirement nowadays, so if some people don't embrace that I honestly can't help them.

Also, just because we didn't have the label ADD decades ago doesn't
mean it didn't exist. Decades ago you could get a job without needing
the ability to read and write and often people with varying learning


Not in this country... (both ADD, and the getting a job without reading)
There were trouble kids, but many many less than there seem to be now.

disorders just slipped through the system and found a job which didn't
require those skills. Those sort of jobs are the ones that were first
to be automated and the first to disappear. Now we are noticing that a
lot of people having problems getting work seem to have a common
disorder or inability to learn at the same rate or proficiency as the
"norm", so we give it a label.

Exactly, we find excuses for something, just because it's becoming a big minority, even majority, thing. Social "equality" has led to a lowering of education standards in the past, and now the social-democratic parts of Germany are much worse educated than the conservative southeast (even the trouble-kids are much better off there, despite the kids from stable families having a big advantage). Hmm...

Here is a true story. I have someone who comes and does some cleaning
for me once a week. Her husband, Ron, who is 56 has just lost his job
because he hurt his back. Ron was a carpenter and a very good one. He
has been working constantly since he started at the age of 15. Now, 56
is too young to retire, but Ron's chances of getting another job are
pretty much non existent. He can no longer work in his trade and he
can barely read and write, but he has a wealth of knowledge gained in
over 40 years of hard physical work (the physical work that led to his
back giving out). Ron won't succeed at job retraining because his
basic education is too poor and essentially its too late to do much

True. We also have some old folks here who can't be expected to switch jobs. But that doesn't mean we should adapt all politics to those people. They can be treated differently, get their pension, but younger people will have to adapt to this world's reality.

about it. I tried to get him some work at the local college where
building and carpentry apprentices do some of their courses, but he
wasn't eligable because his reading/writing skills were not good
enough. Essentially, despite working as hard as he could most of his
life and despite having acquired valuable skills, Ron is pretty much
on the garbage heap. I guess its his fault for not paying more
attention in school and becoming more educated? Maybe it could just be
that the world moved on and now he is simply redundent as a human?

The world moved on, yes, and if there's no more demand for carpenters there is no demand. I see no other way for people like that than retire, even if it's early.

Sub-50 people are different, at least in countries with high literacy.

Ok, I didn't do much homework myself, and sometimes they fired me from
class, because I was chatting with neighbors or not conforming to the
Gleichschaltung in general, but somehow I got through.  And with 25
you might almost count me as a member of generation ADD.


Ah yes, the old "I did it for myself and therefore anyone else who
doesn't its their own fault" arguement. Of course there is no need to
look any deeper and consider issues like differences in home life,
social situations, economic situations, intellectual differences etc


Home life, social situation?  Well, those weren't too great for me, either.

etc. All that is just far to difficult to quantify, so better to just
blame it on the victim.

I don't blame them, I only say we have to face reality and adapt to it. I didn't invent lifelong learning, but I'm one of those who decided to live with it instead of loafing around.

95+% of what? The total number of unemployed, the number of unemployed
under 30 years, under 20 years? The thing I find interesting about

Of people. Most human being should be expected to do something, and not just sit there and say "I demand a job". Of course in Germany there are motivated people right now but no jobs, but that's another story.

these types of arguments is they tend to be based on the belief that
the majority of people are unemployed because they want to be and that
the majority of social security payments is made to lazy unemployed
drug smoking hippies who just want to live off the hard earned tax
dollars of those enterprising capitalists trying to live the dream of
wealth and power. Absolute hogwash. For most industrialised countries

Hehe, no, but in a capitalism (such as the US once was) most people find employment, unless they don't to adapt. In countries like Germany there's so much regulation that companies simply move elsewhere. Now we'd have to adapt to that, but the voters are too lethargic, and the poll-attritions keep saying that the welfare state isn't dead yet, despite an enormous debt.

with a comprehensive welfare scheme, the majority of money paid is for
pensions (old age, disabled/sickness etc) and unemployement benefits is one of
the smaller catagories.

I think in Germany both are *very* high. Add interest payments, and you have most of our taxes. Now *there* is a reason to create jobs instead of increasing welfare.

The argument that all you have to do is work hard and educate yourself
and you will be successful is naive. I know a
considerable number of people who have worked very hard, quite a few
with Phds in practicle areas like resource engineering, natural
resource management, agriculture, botany, soil science etc and despite
constantly attempting to get a job have not been successful. I know

Sure. But there are job offers, so if I couldn't ever find a CS job, I would study business, because they need some people.

If they are exploited, then why don't they form a cooperative, or a
syndicate, work together, and sell they produce?  This is assuming
that they do a fair amount of work.


This assumes far too many things. Firstly, it assumes they can produce
something they can sell without needing to obtain/purchase any
infrastructure or have the capital to setup their co-op. It assumes

Ask the Marxist-Leninists how they create capital investment. My local university seems to have lots of those believers. People should work and receive the fruits of their labor? Sounds like there is no infrastructure involved that needs financing...

Seriously: I assume that a group of 100 workers could do something if they just invested €5000 each. With typical German earnings that shouldn't be too hard. Or sell the car, maybe. If you're unemployed you'll even receive subsidies for creating a company, here.

But because every German knows that MBAs and suits are just stupid know-nothings (or work-nothings) and exploiters, and that capitalism and business are the devil himself, there is a problem. I've never ever seen a leftist or a group of them creating a business plan, raising venture capital etc. Maybe only evil Capitalist class members can create businesses after all?

they are not so exploited they can take the risk of losing what little
they have. It assumes they have the knowledge and confidence to do it
and it assumes enough of them will agree for long enough to make
anything ahppen. Very easy to make such assumptions from the position
of an outside observer.

I agree on the last sentence, sure. But assuming that they were exploited by a do-nothing businessman, they could just go on with their old work (and their new, credit-paid infrastructure). It follows that either they weren't exploited, or that there is a problem with the money or the business mentality. I assume the latter, except for grown families, where the financial situation is difficult.

Oh dear, more one-eyed Kenysian economics - totally ignoring the other
side of the equation, that of supply and demand and how it applies to
labor, not just production. A low wage doesn't necessarily mean "We
don't need any more workers for this job" - it can just as easily mean
"We have lots of unemployed desperate workers, so we can pay them very
little and they will do the job and keep our profits high".

That's what I'm saying. Supply drives prices down. But if one profession has huge supply while another has some demand, that's telling people that they are in the wrong profession.

Why is it the "blame" seems to always be dumped on the employee and
nothing on the employer who has changed the employment landscape to
increase their profits. I'm not saying the employer should take all

Because the employer chooses where to invest his money, and who to hire. The change is the employment landscape is a consequent, but there is no god-given right to a job, so I for one am not complaining. If I need to, I'll leave this country. We Europeans are lucky; we may work anywhere. Language might be a problem, but I'm still studying.

Hmmm, riots, and totally insane ideas coming from the Socialist party. Maybe studying French was the wrong decision, and I should have tried Lithuanian?

the responsability, but I believe they should take some - if they
introduce automation and remove unskilled/low-skilled jobs to increase
their profits, they should also contribute to the re-skilling of their
labor - lets face, employees with more money consume more, so wouldn't
it be in their interest to ensure the greater majority of people can
consume more - surely this will provide better long term profits than
simple replacement of labor by automation?

Well, the state-financed education system encourages companies to externalize education to society. Also, people switch jobs more often, so it's not really worthwhile for them to invest.

In capitalism, I think we'd see more long-term contracts, like TV stations and soccer players have today, and companies would invest more in education (and part would be paid by the employee).

I wonder what these people would do in Socialism.  Probably the state
would just let them starve, because the quota for job A is already
full, and they don't meet any other requirements.  Or pay them for
thumb-diddling.  Or maybe not have any quotas, but install a wage
that's "not exploitative", so that suddenly everybody chooses that job
instead of getting a better education (that's comparably hard work for
the pay you get).


I think it was Walenstein who argued that you couldn't have a
socialist economy within a capitalist world. I suspect the reason that
socialism has not succeeded in any significant way is that we do
essentially live within a capitalist world and the main motivator is
money/wealth/capital. I personally agree with Marx that capitalism has

You can try protectionism, but many people have failed. The reason is not that the world is bad, greedy, and capitalist. The reason is that everywhere, even in Soviet Russia and China, where some people probably had never heard of capitalist economic concepts (too dangerous ideas), there were markets. Black markets spawn everywhere to connect supply and demand. There's nothing sinful about that.

Socialism is cool, but it shouldn't be forced on people, and Socialists have to face the reality: that their community has to have a positive import/export relation.

an inherent contradiction. I don't agree with him that it can/will be
destroyed when the workers rise up and take back the means of

When I read Marx (only the Manifest) I agreed that there were some bad things going on. I agreed with workers that strikes were a good thing, and that Social Democracy brought some real benefits. But I don't agree that Capitalism has a contradiction (what would that be? Capitalism doesn't really have many rules or laws, except those that occur naturally almost all societies of the last thousands of years), or that Socialism can in any way solve things.

production. The problem with his assumption is that it doesn't take

Well, the German Socialist party (PDS) has at least one guy who supports that workers buy shares of their companies. That way, in a decent timeframe, they'd own a good chunk of it. THAT's socialism that makes sense. They'd get part of the profits, but also carry part of the financial risk and capital basis.

Most Socialists still don't understand that production is more than just a bunch of people employing their work; there's other resources too and they need to be allocated.

into account individual motivation. While we are still primarily
motivated by individual gains/benefits, a socialist state is not very
difficult from a capitalist one - the means of production is just
controlled by the state instead of a few percent of
individuals. Therefore, there is no point in considering what would

There's nothing about Capitalism that says that only an elite should own things. In Germany many people own houses, many own shares of companies etc. The world isn't all black and white, with workes and capitalists opposed.

In Socialism all coordination is centralized, while in Capitalism it's totally decentralized. Only the owner, not some commitee, decides how to allocate scarce resources. We all know history. We've seen them work and fail. I think Western countries during the past half century, and the Soviet Union in comparison should show *some* illustration. Yes, they were bad dictatorships. No, I don't think a democracy would do very much better. Democracies brought us Hitler after a crisis that looked just like today's Germany, just to remind (and to satisfy Usenet :D).

happen to those without jobs within a "socialist state" because it
would need to be a socialist planet with a different motivational
imperitive before you would observe any real difference.

But why can't people live a socialism in their own area? Why does it have to be global? And if, then why would Earth be enough, why not other possible planets too?

Capitalism works from single households/families, to small companies, to large companies. Ok, huge corporations bribe and work the state, but that isn't the fault of capitalism, but of too much state power and too few checks and balances.

I wish I had a time machine and could travel forward 30 years or so
and ask again your opinions on this stuff. I suspect your views will
change a lot over that time. I don't mean to discount your opinions -

Oh, they did. Two years ago I was kindof socialist myself, but you know, "he who isn't Socialist with 20 has no heart; he who is still Socialist with 30 has no brains" ;) (no offense, we all have our opinions)

I don't agree with them, but they are just as valid as mine. However,
I suspect you may be in for a few surprises!

As opinions they are valid, and I'm just as curious, yes. I wish we had more federalism, so Socialists could have their Zones back, and other people could have a peaceful libertarian state, a Bushist or Bavarian Christian state etc.

Nothing about life is fair. Where you end up and the road you have to
travel to get there is more influenced by luck than by planning and
hard work. Education and hard work will go a long way towards getting

But still we should work towards more chance equality, which isn't the same as Equality. Germany used to be a country with many opportunities, as were the USA. Things changed, and it's not just evil Globalization that we can suddenly put all our blames on.

you into a position to better take advantage of the good luck when it
comes along, but there are no guarantees. We should all be very


That's right.

careful about judging others based on what we can observe about them
in a relatively short moment as we seldom know what road they have
traveled to get there. 

In the long run, yes.  Back in school we were all more similar I think.

Tim 

P.S. and yes, I do apologise for such an OT post. However, I have to
say that while I've found some of the most intelligent and
knowledgable posts regarding programming et. al. on this group, I
would have to say I've not seen any other programming related group
with such a strong conservative or individualist political
leaning. Not sure if its somehow related to Lisp and the people it
attracts or what - just an observation.

Lisp is about doing things on your own if you want to, without outside regulations. In that way it's Capitalist, not Socialist, IMHO.

If we were a Social Democracy, we'd all use Java, because 60% of The Man say so.

Standardization also wasn't created by a democratic committee, but first through voluntary cooperation with no regulations.

--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
.